Jaba-who

Bit of an odd story. I don't know how true all this is. Scuttlebutt round the local traps this morning. 

 

IFR equipped C182 and IFR capable pilot ( don't know if he was on an IFR plan or if was current) 

 

Left Charters Towers with a phone call made to a maintenance facility in Townsville about going there for an oil change ( that's the story - oil change is really not a big deal to do yourself) but also had a passenger waiting for him at Mt Garnet airstrip to be picked up and taken to Atherton. I don't know if the planned time of pickup allowed for the trip to Townsville as well or if he had double booked himself. 

 

Didn't go to Townsville but headed directly off toward Mt Garnet but at some point didn't go to Mt Garnet either and tracked further east and headed toward Atherton. Crashed about 20 km from Atherton ( way past and offtrack for Mt Garnet so must have made a plan to bypass it. ) the passenger  at Mt Garnet raised the alarm when he never appeared but by then he had already bypassed it and headed for Atherton. No contact or message about changing plan.

 

Theres radio coverage at altitude in some Of the areas areas but lower down it gets patchy. I've flown that area heaps of times and there's variable mobile phone coverage as well at altitude. 

 

I was at Atherton Airport at the time and the weather was good all afternoon mostly all blue sky though a bit windy. I didn't take much notice if there was bad weather to the south west where he crashed. Often is cloud there but as best I recall it was clear there.

 

Starts making you wonder if he was confusional at the time. Medical issue maybe??? 

 

 

Soooooo! -  why not  scrap the carbi & install a fuel injection system ?

Cost predominantly. 

 

Jabiru sold engines with fuel injection to military customers  for a while so they have the technology. 

 

but it would cost more than they make to have the injection systems certified for use in manned aircraft. Theres less and less money in recreational aircraft and engines. And it’s being split up between more and more manufactures. 

 

If it’s not financially viable it won’t happen. 

 

 

As a non Jab person, I always wondered about the ability of a single carburettor to deliver the same air/fuel mixture to  every combustion chamber  - particularly on the 6 cylinder models.

 

 

Jabiru emailed me today touting their new mixture control. They have a you best electronic gadget that will inject air into each inlet manifold to ensure the mixture is correct for all stages of flight. It is fail safe they say.

Given that Jabiru have used the supposedly automatic mixture control carbide for years, are they saying that the carbide is not efficient, or not reliable? Either way I would rather replace the carbide with the injector produced for Stones.

No single  carb system delivers even fuel mixture to all cylinders. Even lycos and conts have uneven distribution. It’s just that they don’t measure it on most aircraft so you don’t know it, and they are big heavy cylinders which handle heat better so the cylinders don’t fail as much ( but still plenty do. ) if they are uneven so there isn’t the effort put to sort out uneven distribution cos it’s not as important. But jabs are really light, don’t have the heat sink capability of a massive amount of metal etc. so distribution becomes more important and more of us monitor  every cylinder for both CHT and EGT. 

 

Yenn - you are conflating two different issues. The carby is not unreliable and it’s reliability and function  is not affected or changed by the fuel control unit they’ve come up with. 

 

The carby does its bit more or less as its supposed to ( but personally I reckon it does it as marked but it’s a crap idea and I have long wished I had a normal carby that I could control leaning etc but that’s a different story. )

 

But the new control  unit  does all its stuff downstream of the carby and basically makes up for fact the mechanical pathway ( not the carby) stuffs up the work of the carby. It would be just fine if we had it feeding just one cylinder. 

 

What concerns me with the new system is it seems - maybe I’m wrong - that it relies on some cylinders running  rich  and then leans them match the leaner ones. 

 

Wonder how we deal with situation where none are rich  ( they’re just right say) and some are already lean. Then it leans out the just right ones  too make them lean to match the lean one. 

 

So now you run them all lean. 

 

So then you have to rejet the carby. Bigger job pulling carby out put it back retest it pull it out again if needed.  

 

Big job.  

 

 

Automotive brake fluids will not function well if at all at high altitudes. Mil spec fluids are petroleum based and usually red.

But non-mil spec stuff of different types can be red as well. Unless you know what it is it would be very unwise to take any notice of colour. 

 

 

Do a google search etc or call the company. 

 

As as far as I am aware brake fluids can be all colours.   Ive used a number of brands that have been green, clear or red and they are the same stuff

 

 

I disagree with "certified" engine requirement - you will almost certainly get approval to fly over built up areas, if your non certified engine is a recognised aircraft engine (assuming air frame is approved) ie auto engine conversions and non certified  aircraft engine modifications are not likely to be approved.

Many of the light aircraft lane of entry's (through CTA) pass over built up areas. It is often almost impossible to select an alternative "safe" rout to get to your destination without using the lane of entry.

Mostly yes but Not exactly. 

 

Yes you are likely to get approval if it’s a well recognised aircraft engine, even if it’s not “certified” BUT  it’s up to the AP. 

 

Herein lies a problem for some. A conservative AP May be more restrictive  if the well known aviation engine is known to be at higher risk of failures. ( even if there is not CASA rules in place like for certain Jab engines.) it’s up to the AP. 

 

But if one AP ( the first) won’t approve it then hunting around for another may be unsuccessful because you could understand the seconds reluctance to counter the first, because if an accident happens there’s a lot more explaining to do as to why he countered the now obviously correct opinion of the first. 

 

There’s another thing too. When an AP takes on the qualification they have the option of not being approved to certify anybody to fly over built up areas. It’s a legal option some have taken. (Our Chapter AP had that restriction and it took a couple of people by surprise and caused some issues) 

 

As for lanes of entry they are not paths where a pilot can go without approval to fly over built up areas. They are not and never were meant to be for this purpose. They are navigational routes, aids to  conflict avoidance and separation, and sometimes are for sensitive area avoidance and noise abatement. 

 

If you have no approval to fly over the built up area you can’t use either the fact it’s a VFR route or ATC directions as a reason to fly there. 

 

 

There’s lots of mixed up and conflated data there. 

 

WRT converting a 19 xxx. To VH. 

 

Yep it can be done. All it requires is a special C of A and then you register it. 

 

To get a C of A you need an authorised person. An AP.  

 

These are CASA authorised people to do your C of A. 

 

Most of these are members of, and do C of As through the SAAA. ( Sport Aircraft Assiciation of Australia) 

 

There are APs  who are independent if the SAAA as well. 

 

I can give you names of the SAAA ones but mostly they will only do them for SAAA members. Can’t help with non-SAAA  ones though. Only one I knew died recently. 

 

As for for entry into CTA. 

 

( not counting special situations - like training at a RAAus school in Class D or C with an exemption etc ) 

 

You can do it in an RAAus aircraft provided it has a transponder and radio AND the pilot has GA licence AND a current medical. 

 

The requirement for a certified engine is contentious. The most commonly quoted is no you don’t. Not enter CTA. BUT if your route takes you over a built up area inside CTA  then yes you do. 

 

If your start point is an RAAus plane and an RAAus pilot certificate and you want to fly in CTA. Your cheapest option is just to get a GA licence and appropriate radio and transponder. If you want a GA plane as well get the above AND then get conversion to VH as well. But maybe significant cost to get the AP. 

 

 

There's a shed at Brandon near Ayr that has the tail section on the roof at 45 degrees and looks like it smashed into the roof. Don't an image but some one on the forum may post a image.

Similar one at Winton airport ( or was) 

 

 

Very much depends on the surface profile, flat, curved bi-curved. Vinyls can only be applied to a flat or single curved surface.  They woulds crinkle if applied to bi-curved. Professional seem to mask off parts and spray them individually.

Not sure where this idea comes from. 

 

But vinyl can be applied to any complex curve. Wrap techniques which involve heat gun application can be used on pretty much any shape. I’ve seen a video where it’s even applied to ball! I’ve wrapped a few less challenging shapes but definitely complex multi-plane curves. 

 

 

I think that it is quite easy for the minister , with x number of public servants, to address every press article with a statement. Not so easy for an opposition spokesman in the lead up to a federal election. To *fly tornado* I can only say that patience is required when dealing with politics.

Umm nope. It’s the exact  opposite. 

 

When you’re in opposition you can say anything, without detail to back it and without funding in place etc. as long as you drag into it how badly the incumbents are currently doing or that they have “no plan” or “no policy” or that because they don’t agree with the opposition policy then they are “rudderless” etc. 

 

No matter who is the opposition it’s a position of being able to make noise on anything with a fair degree of impunity. 

 

 

Am I wrong,

G registered aircraft no longer have to paint their rego on their aircraft.

 

RAA aircraft are still required to Show their rego numbers.

 

spacesailor

No that’s not correct. VH aircraft - Don’t have to display them on the underside of the wing now. Still have to have them on the sides of the fuselage though and the size has decreased. 

 

 

And have you dealt with AVdata?

A totally corrupt private organisation. No likelihood your information will be safe, much Lee's charged accurately. A landing fee is between you and the organisation charging it. If you feel like this, pay the airfield operator direct. Don't give AVdata a 30 plus percent fee.

I’m not sure this is valid. I’ve been getting GA landing fees through avdata for years and their charge is the same as the airfield fee listed in the ERSA. Can’t see that if you went direct to an operator that uses avdata they’d accept less than the advertised fee. No evidence but I’d have doubts (and they may not actually let you either). 

 

They ( avdata) Can be a  pain because they use all sorts of means to identify aircraft that can be in error. ( recordings where mis-translation can occur, flight notifications submitted to air services but flights not actually done due diversions etc ) but when I’ve contacted them about them they have always cancelled without any problem. 

 

So I think to throw avdata into the mix at this point is just going to muddy the water. 

 

 

This discussion of details needs to stop because of the current court cases in progress. 

No it doesn’t. None of us are associated with the case and nothing anyone says here is prejudicial to any outcome. We are an uninformed group discussing a public event. 

 

 

Even if there was something in the splay, I would still be trying my best NOT to fly into it....

Is it a bit like watching someone ilegally cross the road in front of you but not slowing down, and hitting them because you were in the right......?

Not if you are nose up, on climb out. The Ferris wheel would not be in his field of view. (As he stated in the case ) 

 

 

I fail to see how he flew straight into it. I know I wasn’t there but there doesn’t even look like a last minute roll or anything.

I have a vague recollection that there was some claim by the council or maybe it was the people suing the pilot that there was a cross wind and that the aircraft was pushed across into the Ferris wheel. 

 

They claimed that if flying in a cross wind and maintaining his desired path was beyond the pilots skill then he was negligent in flying in conditions beyond his skill. 

 

His counter was that the Ferris wheel was erected within the required splay of the airfield which is required by law precisely because crosswinds can cause drift in even the best pilots and that flying within the splay demonstrated adequate skill. The negligence being that the Ferris wheel has been erected within the splay. 

 

I dont know whether that initial assertion or the pilots response had any effect on the outcome. 

 

 

Thanks all for the replies.  I’m not sure that it has any real practical limitations. Always skirting the edges of built up areas anyway and it certainly wouldn’t stop me landing on an oval if needed due to engine failure. I know in Canberra they always seem to vector you over Queenbeyan (very built up area) when coming in runway 30, so I’m guessing that also wouldn’t be an issue either. Still not sure what benefit or problem the rule solves.

cheers

 

Damien

Just to point out that because ATC vectors you over a built up area doesn't get you off the hook. 

 

If ATC vectors you to do or go somewhere you are not legally allowed to go then you are supposed to tell them you cannot comply and you may need to offer short explanatory statement. They are then required to vector you by a direction that you can legally or safely fly. They don't have any list of aircraft or pilots and what their restrictions and flight status is. They require you to advise them if there directions they give that can't be complied with. 

 

Again relating to my earlier post.

 

Despite having organised with Cairns ATC that I could not track over built up areas during my phase 1 trials, I did get several directions to track via various built up areas. My response was that I "could not comply due to aircraft limitations  and REQUIRED track via ...xxxxx...".  It wasn't a real problem and As I recall I sometimes got a short delay but usually no issue. 

 

 

Use of the VFR lane would be taken to be CASA approved. As would approach/departure routes associated with an ALA.  

The term "built-up area" is not defined specifically in any Australian legislation, other than the Australian Road Rules. Therefore, since they didn't define it, the legislators must have considered that the term was one of common knowledge. It is like the word "safely" which is not defined in any WH&S legislation, or road rules, but it is expected that everyone understands the concept.

 

So you can legally fly across a city using VFR lanes, and you can overfly built-up areas at a minimum of 1000' going to or from an ALA, but you can't fly off the beaten track in an LSA to see your house from the air.

No that's not correct. 

 

A VFR lane carries no cross meaning with non-populous or non-populated area. 

 

They can be over both populous, non-populous or a combination of the two areas. 

 

A VFR lane is a route designed to keep traffic in or on a specific path either to aid in navigation, traffic flow and conflict avoidance or to avoid areas of non-aviation significance such as noise sensitivity. 

 

If your aircraft is not approved to fly over a populous area then that's it. You can't whether there's a VFR lane there or not. 

 

My my personal experience was:

 

I have an experimental GA Jabiru and when I got my initial C of A and did the phase 1 trials I had that limitation on the aircraft. As my home base was Cairns international airport ( in Class C with several VFR lanes over built up areas which were required paths into the airport) I had to find out  etc how I was going to do 25 hours of phase 1 trials and get in and out. I got advice from both my AP and CASA and required that information to organise with ATC at Cairns to be able to come and go NOT using the VFR paths because they crossed built up areas. 

 

Once I hit the magic 25 hours and hit the phase 2 approvals it was fine - then followed VFR lanes or go wherever I wanted ( with ATC approval. ) 

 

 

Maybe the flew in front and caused some turbulence. ....I don't know really.....

Maybe just to get an eyeball on the cockpit and see if the pilot was conscious and not communicating vs unconscious. 

 

 

Discussion on another pilots forum, suggests the scuttlebutt is he went to sleep while aircraft was on autopilot. 

 

Apparently woke and while awake for some time refused to/did not make contact with ATC. ? Embarrassed, confused in post awakening stupor ( so called "sleep inertia" )

 

 

Many types of public address systems use a "prompt" to get your attention before relevant information is given.

A "ding dong" noise or other sound/voice ("attention shoppers...", "This is your pilot speaking, ...")

 

It is NOT important what it is as long as you can then "tune in" to what is being said, to hear the core message after this prompt.

 

For me when flying it is the word "traffic" at the start of a radio call which gives me the prompt to listen to the call.

 

The next word is the "location". This determines whether I need to keep listening or not.

 

If not, I can tune back out and do whatever it was I was doing before hand.

 

If the word "location" becomes the prompt, it is a pain because half the time I miss it, and have to listen intently to the end, to hear the location again.

 

Then find out the "location" was a strip 50 miles away and I listened to all that for nothing.

 

So..... "traffic" then " location", in that order, is just pure common sense...... irrespective of the regulation.

 

And where do regulations come from? God? Some almighty being? Satan? The alcoholic that lives on the corner? Nanna's dog?

 

No people, they come from HUMANS.  And humans are often wrong.....

Absolutely agree. 

 

 

It's not the end of the world if people use non standard phrasing, to me as long as you get the message across as clear and consice as possible. I'd rather that than somebody prattling on and jamming up the radio waves.

Actually it could be. 

 

Misunderstand and you could collide with conflicting traffic. 

 

The trouble is that non standard phraseology can be interpreted many ways and one persons meaning can be interpreted differently by another. 

 

And non standard phraseology may not be even correctly heard  - someone throws in some word you don’t expect in a background of noise then there’s a good chance you won’t even know what it was they said, let alone their intended meaning. 

 

 

I have two Flightline 760s in my CH701 and without wishing to jinx myself, I am happy with them. I bought them second hand on-line from Jabiru.

Are Fliteline 760 knock-off Microair 760s?

 

 

Why is it still in the AIPs?

Could it be that the format is not that important, as long as all the necessary information is included?

I think format becomes important in poor reception conditions. If you know what information is supposed to be stated your brain gets pretty good at hearing through the static. If you have no idea of what was supposed to be said your brain doesn’t know what the context was to try and make sense of the sounds. 

 

Of course that can be a bad thing because your brain is really good at converting something into something else that it is expecting.  But often it’s enough to understand it provided you know what it should be. 

 

 

I’ll give the M760 pass grade.

Ive had two in two aircraft.  Both wired in by me on a harness I built up and in both cases they worked as advertised.  Good clear  send and receive and on the trike where I had a transponder - electronic flight display and a gps screen plus all switched within cm of each other no interference.  

 

However - and this downgraded them to a pass - the service support when they go wrong is - politely - appalling.  It took an age to get one back and the number of calls and excuses was unacceptable. 

 

I still have 1 and it’s going fine.  But if/when it dies or we move to 8.33 spacing I will gladly fork out for any other make. 

I have had three and my hangar mate has had one in about 10 years. Mine have been in as dual comms and one died and was replaced. 

 

In  that time I have had plenty of people tell me the signal out was clean, crisp and very readable. 

 

 Unfortunately the receive side has been completely different. I’ve been plagued with engine noise, transponder noise, strobe light noise and even flap motor noise. Done plenty of things to fix it but nothing individual worked more than a minor amount. After lots of small increments i got it to an acceptable level but never good enough for me to recommend them to anyone. 

 

I agree with Kyle that the service was also a major problem. We sent some back multiple times for repair and the problem was not able to found or fixed. Or it was found and “fixed” only to be present just the same when it came back. 

 

 

The other thought I should have added is that you can get it in all sorts of colours not just white.  There's a lot of advantage in that when making harnesses for correct wire identification.